About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Maufas 11, Wynns 7, Murase 6, Mendoza 5, Norton 4, Yee 4, San Joaquin 2, California 1, San Francisco 1, Csba 1, Us 1, Nsba 1, Et Cetera 1, Ming Lee Providered 1, Olsen 1, Mr. Davis 1, Sfusd 1, Mr. Bushman 1, Mr. Kelly 1, Roberts 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 14, 2012
    3:00 - 3:30pm PST  

3:00pm
somebody is going to start on the 30th and she submitted a second resignation letter changing the date to the 30th. sounds like that is the reason. i am not going to project, but just guess on my own. and then on the 14th, miss olsen said you have an email asking the principal is it possible to be reinstated. is that correct? she submitted a second resignation letter to hr, changing the date to the 30th and that might have been after the cation conversation that you just mentioned and she asked the principal is it possible to be reinstated? >> she submitted the second resignation form on the 13th, requesting an effective date of 11/30, on the 13th.
3:01pm
the day after that, the 14th, she remailed the principal and asked if it was possible to be reinstated. >> then on the 16th, she emailed the principal that she did not get a response? >> that she was talking to the union. >> is that when the principal says it would be better to talk to the union? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner murase? >> i have a question. does this resignation in any way impact our ability to reapply for another position within the district? >> it does not. >> any other comments? mr.
3:02pm
kelly, you have crept up closer and closer so say something. >> i think we have initial confusion. if you look at the footnote on the letter, you will see that the initial resignation was submitted november 7th. which proposed the 16th, but the principal received her resignation and then the rescission for that. so the timeline that mr. bushman gave you would apply if that were the only thing, but she then submitted a rescission for that that doesn't show up in his timeline. then again when she was frustrated with the job again submitted a resignation, which she then again rescinded. so she has gone through this cycle twice. and what mr. bushman is giving you is action based on the first time that she did it and what we're following up is action based on the second.
3:03pm
we thought the first one was already rescinded and that is why we didn't pursue that. >> so for clarification, mr. bushman, so there was no rescission -- she didn't rescind her initial november 7th resignation? >> she did not and, in fact her actions were that of someone who was planning to leave, told the school through written email, which i have, that she was going to leave. and she indicated at that point it would be the 30th, but there was no action taken either written or otherwise, that we can determine. but the bottom line is the requirement is within three working days that it be submitted in writing.
3:04pm
>> so basically what happened is she put in a resignation on november 7th. she put in another resignation november 14th, but did not rescind the original one on november 7th, is that correct? >> she submitted a second resignation requesting to change the date. >> okay. thank you. >> from the 17th to the 30th. whether you can do that or can't do that, i will have to ask my lawyer, but the bottom line we were acting on a resignation and we acted to post and hire her replacement as we needed to do in order to cover that classroom in good faith well before she even talked about coming back.
3:05pm
>> okay, let's see, no other questions. so why don't we have roll call -- to accept the recommendation yes. >> miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer. yes. >> miss maufas? >> no. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> yes. >> president yee? >> aye. >> the next item is k5 and commissioner wynns. >> i want to have it explained more, the private product that
3:06pm
we were licensing, using through a license, was bought by a county office of education? >> originally they started out as the county office product, san joaquin county invented it and sold it to this company that could not handle the demands across the state and so they gave back to san joaquin county because it was not cost-effective. >> so when we started to license it, it was under the san joaquin license? >> i would have to go back and check the records. they put in for a three-year contract and it came back from contracts saying that we don't have three-year contracts with vendors in our districts. at that time consultants were attached to it, because we were training our teachers and staffs with consultants. this year when they put it through, they didn't realize it
3:07pm
needed a k reso and it was the transition, because it's just software this year. we have a new budget person and also a new program administrator. so they were learning the processes, but it's been a continual product that we have been using as well. >> okay. >> i am interested in the county office dynamics and i am okay with this, but i would like to find out more about it. i have other sources to find out more about it and maybe i will do a little investigation and discuss it with staff if that would be okay? >> okay. >> thank you roll call please. >> thank you, miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> president yee?
3:08pm
>> aye. >> seven ayes. >> the next item. >> mr. davis, did you have a statement? was there something else we were supposed to do or just vote on it? >> there is not an additional statement other than the one i have sent out to the board members on two occasions just explaining that commissioner maufas' request based upon her employment with a non-profit organization is a remote activity, which is approvable and in compliance with the california government code provisions our policy is more stringent and that and it would take a waiver of our board policy for her to be totally on this position. that is what this is for. >> so is the recommendation to do a waiver then? >> yes. the recommendation is a waiver. >> the waiver is actually imbedded in this. >> okay good.
3:09pm
thank you. any other commissioner comments? >> yes, i have a question for our attorney. i see that this is for the oaks children center and that is the place of employment of commissioner maufas, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> so that would seem that commissioner maufas would be not able to vote on any thing pertaining to the oaks children center. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> does that extend to not be able to vote -- since oak's children center is a non-public school placement, would that mean she would not be able to vote on any non-public school placement resolutions or any contracts? >> my advice to commissioner maufas is that she not vote on any non-public school matter. >> so then commissioner maufas would then excuse herself from any of those votes? >> excuse herself from any discussion, with any board
3:10pm
members either in a meeting or not in a meeting and abstain from voting on all of those items, yes, ma'am. >> so are those topics to be discussed for example at a committee meeting, a committee of the whole or a curriculum committee meeting, would she then there be exempt from participating in those discussions? >> she would. >> would she be exempt from participating in any discussion around special education and contracts? >> i don't think so. the way the government code is written, is that basically, if there is some financial gain nexus between what is being discussed and the fact that she employed by a non-public school or a situation where an appearance, if a contract was not awarded to one non-public school, that was maybe a competitor of oaks. she would not involve herself in anything there there would be the appearance of personal
3:11pm
gain because that could provide funds to oaks that could be her salary. if it's just a special education question in general that is unrelated to non-public schools, i of course will look at each of those individually, but i think she is able to discuss and vote on these matters. >> so this would not exempt commissioner maufas to vote on our budget? >> it would not, but my advice to her when she votes on the budget, whatever line item of the budget accounts for that particular funding line, that she would identify that and abstain from voting on that piece. >> okay. and so just for procedures and roberts -- for our parliamentarian, how many votes would it take to make a majority vote? >> a majority of the board is
3:12pm
four. >> okay. thank you very much. commissioner wynns? >> i want to ask a follow-up on that. one of the issues that occurs -- there are a couple of things, first thing as a matter of procedure and appreciate that commissioner maufas correctly is, i think, identified that she was going to abstain and leave the room in this case before we voted on the other item. because even though we know, we have to officially -- she has to identify it before the discuss or the vote takes place. but one of the things that concerns me is that the way we work with non-public schools, and i presume that is one reason why you are advising her to not vote on anything related to non-public school placements is that we just have contracts with them and we could assign people. we could take a child from one non-public school and move them to oaks or take them from oaks
3:13pm
and move them somewhere else and that would be problematic, and would like to acknowledge that.in the case of the non-public schools we just say these are the non-public schools that we're going to contract with and it's placement, et cetera. so we don't actually vote on the amount of money we're giving to each non-public school that. is what makes this a little different. >> exactly right, commissioner wynns, which is why this particular reso $13 million the entire non-public school budget and to give her the advice to declare and abstain from this kind of discussion for the very reason
3:14pm
you very articulately said. >> the question arises just like i think when commissioner fewer was you been talking about. we talk about what strategies we have to spend less money on non-public schools. that is one of our budget strategies related to the budget in general. so somebody along the line has to think about that and tell us how that might -- i mean we're not doing that until june. so i don't know-- although, we might at some point. all the budget hearings and budget committee meetings we often talk about that as something that we need to look at. what are we doing about that? i don't know -- i really don't know. i want somebody else like you to think about and maybe do some research on that. >> i absolutely will. i will -- not that i don't anyway, but i will peruse the
3:15pm
contract even more carefully, so i could pick up anywhere there might be and have that discussion with commissioner maufas and, if necessary, with the president of the board before anything, if it's something that would need to be brought to the attention of the entire board other than a declaration or abtension. >> the last thing it's about the declaration that she has to make whatever we have something like that on there. i haven't heard her use the words that it's not required at least advisable, "it's because of a potential conflict of interest," and that it represents a potential conflict of interest? >> i think i have to take a little issue -- government code 1090 is an automatic conflict of interest. automatic conflict of interest. >> the words "conflict of interest," have not been used
3:16pm
except in yours >> if you are more comfortable with that. >> you could give me a different opinion, but in the past, counsels for the school board have informed me that you have to actually state the conflict. >> that makes the record clearer, i agree and we'll do that. >> that is the purpose of the abstention. >> thank you. president yee, i want to say that i don't have a problem with this at all. i congratulation the oaks children center for employing commissioner maufas and i think she will be a great asset to them and i wish her much luck in her appointment there. i think this is something that we with work out as a board and i would like for her to be able to participate. the reason i asked about our budget, i would like for her to be able to participate in our budget vote as it is what we do as a board, you know? thank you. >> roll call, please. >> thank you. miss pl y? >> yes. >> miss fewer?
3:17pm
>> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> mr. yee? >> aye. >> six ayes. >> thank you. moving on to item q, i believe. superintendent's proposal, first reading. this is for 1212-11sp1 adoption of the board policy bp6020, parental involvement to conform with the current law and the findings of an april, 2012 federal program monitoring audit. is there a motion and second? >> so moved. >> second. >> this has already gone through committee. it is held over for the action in january of 2013.
3:18pm
january, 2013 meeting. item r, board members' proposal, firs reading. this is for creating an equitable pathway to community contracting and hiring. co-authored by myself and commissioner fewer. is there a motion and second? >> moved. >> second. >> and it will be referred to buildings, grounds, services committee. >> to personnel? should it go to the budget committee? >> my recommendation as commissioners have read the proposal, that it talks about
3:19pm
-- i think buildings and grounds definitely, but it also talks about creating an internship program and a robust internship program. i don't know if it should go off to curriculum because it's under the purview of that portion of the resolution. >> i would think it would not go to curriculum until the plan itself is created. >> sure. >> deputy superintendent ly, does this have any fiscal impact in terms of the plan? >> commissioners i think it could be interpreted one of two ways. one is based on the narrower view that passing this resolution calls for the creation of a plan. the contents of which would be put in place and perhaps subject to a subsequent board
3:20pm
action. i'm not sure what the authors contemplate, but the creation of the plan, obviously is a smaller fiscal impact than potentially implementing the plan, which would certainly have fiscal impacts, i believe. >> let's get to the narrower version and work on the plan for the board to consider next year. so we'll just keep it at the buildings and grounds committee, okay? next item s, board members' reports for standing committees. are there any standing committees reports? oh, yes, there are. report of augmented buildings, grounds and services committee, november 19th. >> you want to start with rules? >> you are right, but let me start with that since i read it. commissioner murase. >> i'm sorry,
3:21pm
>> go ahead. >> we met on november 19th. we had the action item discussion and committee recommendations on plans and next steps regarding the 1950 mission site and related properties. the action by general consensus was to allow for six months to do negotiations with the city and county of san francisco at the end of which we will decide whether or not to go with the city recommendation. so a six -month period where we'll be in conversation with the city and county. there are two informational items, process and timelines for the proposition 39 charter school placements and presentational update on the facilitates use database. our next meeting will be monday, december 17th at 6:00
3:22pm
p.m.and we'll be continuing the discussion about the local hire resolution. >> thank you commissioner murase. the next one is report from the augmented rules policy and legislative committee of november 14th, reporting commissioner wynns. >> thank you. so the first action item was the consideration and action of district positions on selected legislative proposals, which we actually didn't do any of, because they were n all in existence already. it was more that that was related to the uprr date on the legislative on session and the status of those bills and you all got that report. the pe exemption discussion that we have already taken up here and then we talked about -- we had the legislative
3:23pm
advocates here and again, i urge all members of the board and the public to attend these meetings. because we are getting unbelievable service from our legislative advocates. so if you want to hear opinions from the best lobbyists and former state superintendents sometimes and former very important staffers in the capitol, that is the place to hear those in our rules committee. so they gave us their rundown on the results of the legislative committee and of the election. and of the likelihood of sort of what is being discussed in sacramentoo about what will happen with the so-called supermajority that the democracies democrats have and what is happening after prop 30? that people in capitol seem dobto be deluded that we
3:24pm
have a lot of new money and that we have to be prepared for that. also, i think the most important part is that we're developing agenda for what sfusd wants to accomplish legislatively in the coming session, in the coming year. so in this draft form it was given to all members of the board, but we should discuss that at sometime with the whole board i think. we also had the review of the informational items that you see there, the third and fourth one. one was the policy on the community relations policy. this was our rules committee work on the next part of the rules and policy review that we're doing with csba and we'll continue to do that. last item i think is very important and ask the leaders of the board next year to be a little more assertive at asking all of the committees to which we have referred other
3:25pm
components of the policy manual to actually begin to review them. the rules committee still has work to do on the 1000 series and one other series. we're not ready, but we're at least doing it whereas other committees to my knowledge has not taken up, et cetera. so i would ask that we do that in the coming year. thank you. >> thank you. next report is the augmented curriculum and program committee of december 3, reporting would be commissioner fewer. >> thank you, president yee and i'm sure you are going to miss these meetings and report outs. [ laughter ] we had a follow-up on the parent involvement policy and actually i was very impressed and think that commissioners were also impressed at the outreach that staff has done to encompass and ensure that our parent advisory committee and also our office of parent engagement have been
3:26pm
a partner in this and wholly approve of the language. it really does encompass more the spitzer of what we want to do around here with parent engagement. thanks to staff. and an update on the common learning assessments, which i think and i believe there are materials in every commissioner's box to review on this and thank you to jackano for the excellent presentation. >> thank you. next one is report from the committee of the whole. on december 4th. commissioner norton. >> yes, we had a very robust discussion -- well, first we had a wonderful presentation of a video done by the students at hillcrest elementary. to gangnam style all on inclusion. it was wonderful. it's eventually going to be
3:27pm
loaded on the school district website, but they have to get the releases signed and that is taking quite a bit of time. we had a really great discussion on the district's work for professional development towards inclusive practices and response to behavioral rti. and also a recap on the a-g action plan with respect to the class of 2014. and it was a great-- although, very long evening. >> thank you for the short report though. i think this last one, report from the augmented budget and business services committee from december 5, commissioner mendoza. >> thank you. we had our usually resolutions that we have been reviewing, ming lee providered a state update, which basically said we won't know anything until
3:28pm
january what the governor update, federal budget update and the impact of sequestration was another piece that we spoke about. you know, still kind of up in the air. and then the budget development calendar for '13-14 he reviewed and some of the key areas that we'll need discussion on the timeline of the budget. we wanted to thank the board members in the "things that you want to talk about," during our budget process and we'll be incorporating those topics in our discussions. as you know, there is a lot of different things that are happening on a variety of different budgets that will impact us deeply over the next two years. so we want to continue to have these conversations earlier rather than later. so i just wanted to appreciate the staff that helped to support this
3:29pm
committee, because there is a lot of moving parts. and so in the next coming months, we will be really focused on the changes particularly around prop 30, and some of the priorities that we're going to have to make in the coming months. thank you. >> thank you commissioner mendoza. so this brings us to item t -- are we finished? let's see i probably shouldn't try to skip this, but board delegates to membership organizations nsba, csba, cgcs and we are already heard that we had a great conference with the csba in san francisco. were there other things that pele